Calibrating the right to confrontation

In ‘Confronting Confrontation’, published in 2012, Professor Mike Redmayne elucidated a critique of the relatively strong confrontation rights embedded in the US constitutional and ECHR traditions. He argued in favour of an alternative, more narrow conceptualisation of confrontation as the positive right of an accused to cross-examine available witnesses. Drawing on some of the threads stitched in ‘Confronting Confrontation’, the present article explores the challenge of applying the ECHR confrontation right in common law courts. Particular emphasis is placed on the need within the Strasbourg doctrine to assess the potential significance of the evidence to the prosecution’s case at trial.